Stardate 20030424.1341

(Captain's log): One of the many things revealed in September, 2001, was that Washington itself is vulnerable. The original plan by the terrorists is now thought to have intended that two jets attack there, one to hit the White House and one to hit the Capitol Building. But those are actually rather difficult to pick out of the center of the city if you're not familiar with how it looks from the air. It's likely that the pilot of the jet that actually reached Washington couldn't figure out where his actual target was, and since the Pentagon is large and distinctive and easily spotted from a great distance (and clearly a significant target) he chose to hit it instead. The other jet which was probably intended for Washington was the fabled Flight 93, whose passengers fought back against the terrorists and which crashed in an uninhabited area in Pennsylvania.

If our enemies had had access to a nuke, there can be no doubt they'd have tried to use one against us instead of screwing around with hijacked jets. New York would possibly have been the target, but it's just as possible that they'd have gone after Washington with it.

During the Cold War and the nuclear standoff, it was always recognized that there was a danger of Washington being nuked. But it was assumed at the time that there would be some warning, and critical parts of the government would have time to leave the city and go to a safe place. In addition, in any war where Washington got destroyed it was likely that most of the rest of the nation would be devastated as well and the situation afterwards would have been unrecognizable.

That's not the case, however, if a terrorist group gets its hands on a single nuke and manages to use it on Washington. In that case there might be no warning at all, and the rest of the nation would still exist and would need a government but wouldn't have one. In the case of such a catastrophe, what Constitutional means would be available to reconstitute a government, and to permit it to fight the resulting war in a time of greatest crisis?

In the wake of the Kennedy assassination in 1963, it became clear that we needed to straighten out the issue of Presidential succession. In 1965, the 25th amendment was proposed, which was ratified in 1967. Aspects of it have been exercised at least four times since then, when Gerald Ford was chosen to replace Vice President Spiro Agnew after he resigned, when Nelson Rockefeller was chosen to become VP after Nixon resigned and Ford became the only unelected President in the history of our nation, and at least twice when the sitting President needed to go under anesthetic during medical procedures and the Vice President temporarily gained Presidential powers.

Between the 25th amendment and other Constitutional provisions, and laws made by Congress, there's a clear line of who succeeds to the office of President if both the President and Vice President are dead. Third in line is the Speaker of the House; fourth is the President Pro Tem of the Senate, and then there's a long list of cabinet secretaries and other top government officials.

During the last year and a half, there were several times when political events or intelligence reports suggested that there was a greater risk of some sort of attack on Washington, and when that happened, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped out of sight. What was going on is that Cheney and a group of top advisors representing the various cabinet branches were moved to a secure location away from Washington. If Washington had been destroyed, Cheney would have become President and those advisors would have become his government. And because Cheney would legally be President, and thus legally Commander in Chief, he'd have been able to immediately begin to fight the war. There would not have been any kind of military paralysis due to decapitation, such as we seem to have seen in Iraq in the recent war (though that still hasn't been confirmed).

That takes care of the Executive Branch. (By the way, even if there was no warning at all and Cheney wasn't away when this catastrophe happened, there's still a rump government hidden away at all times which could take over the function of the Executive Branch. They used to be in Cheyenne Mountain; I'm not sure if that's where they are now.)

The Senate is also covered. In the original Constitution, Senators were chosen by the legislatures of the states. That was changed with ratification of the 17th Amendment (proposed in 1912, ratified in 1913), under which Senators were directly elected.

The 17th Amendment also included a provision whereby any vacant Senate seat would be filled through appointment by the governor of the state, unless the state itself decided on some different mechanism (such as a by-election). But even when a different method was used, the 17th Amendment still permits the Governor to select a temporary Senator to fill the position until a permanent replacement became available.

If Washington were totally destroyed without warning and all the Senators were killed, the governors could create a new Senate almost immediately through appointment.

The problem is the House of Representatives. When there's a vacancy in the House, the only Constitutional means available to fill it is a by-election. And in a catastrophe like this, that's too slow a process. In a crisis like this, days matter, and without a quorum in the House of Representatives it would be impossible to pass any kind of declaration of war (such as an authorization for war under the War Powers